Should Character Creation be at the back of the book

[Florian]

*Shrugs*

I don't think this can really be answered.

We have a continuum going. The more complex the setting, the more it shapes the rules, the more you have to understand the entirety of the system before you can create a character.

You can basically throw a character into the Forgotten Realms and be fine, it works, you'd have a hard time throwing a character into Rokugan, some David Edings world or A Song Of .... it won't work.

[1337 b4k4]

Who are you writing the book for, people who want to learn to bake, or people who just wants to bake a bread and need a recipe? For the former I agree with you, and for the latter they can skip to the back for recipies regardless. But should you try to tease the latter into wanting to learn about baking as well, and if so, what is the best approach?

Anyways, IMO the sourdough culture is the heart of bread baking, and it might not be a bad idea to start with that one.

Well in this analogy, your standard TTRPG rule book is teaching the system, so it's people that want to learn to bake. And teasing the latter might be worthwhile, and that's why I suggest that some pre-gens should be up front. It's not quite analogous to having a starter recipe in the front with all the remaining ones in the back, but it's pretty close. It's basically a "see this awesome thing, now we're going to talk about how you can make that better"

I like character creation. It is a time where the character slowly takes on form, important decisions about him/her are made, concept/backstory is either made or changed to fit the rules and probaly setting. It is the time when a player gets to know the character and the groundwork to identify with him/her later is laid. It is also the time of carefully choosing powers and abilities imagining their later use and building anticipation.

Obviously experiences can be different, but I should point out that as much as you personally might like character creation, you are also already self selected for being a more "in depth" TTRPG player, simply by your nature of being a regular on a TTRPG forum. While our hobby is a pretty well connected hobby, I would wager that TTRPG forum participants are more in depth than your average player, although I do admit to having no statistics on this to back up that assumption. I will note that my experience has been the players that are active online differ significantly in their enjoyment of aspects of our hobby than players who aren't.

I agree with some other posters that putting pre-gens for play into the rule book... doesn't appeal to me. However if I have some running example characters, or setting characters, I could see providing at least partial character sheets for those. I might have to add more/adjust some example characters.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the rule book should only have pre-gens or even that it should suggest that all new players start playing with pre-gens. Just that in terms of presenting the rules the pre-gens should come first, followed by the rules the govern how a finished character interacts with the game itself, and then the character generation rules should be added. If you're familiar at all with online DIY how-tos and the sorts of standards that have developed around them, I'm suggesting here that what TTRPGs need to do is put a "picture of the finished project" first before going into the step by steps and tear downs.

In my current work I put the character rules right after the system rules and character creation is in there. However it is a fairly minor part after explaining what all the stats are. So I could put character creation later, but I would probably leave the stats and explanations near the front.

And that makes sense to me. If I'm not being clear, I do distinguish between the rules about characters, and the character creation rules. As a sort of simplified example, the "Monsters" section of Swords and Wizardry is divided into 3 parts:
1) Reading the monster descriptions (basically the rules about what the stats and attributes are and do)
2) The actual monsters list
3) Creating monsters rules for modifying or building your own custom monsters

This makes perfect sense to me, but what I'm getting at in this thread is it seems like we do something of the opposite with characters. Your average TTRPG is laid out for characters as if the monster section were:
1) Creating monsters rules
2) Reading the monster descriptions
3) (Optionally, and not frequently) The monsters list

I suspect it won't change things as much as you think.

The players who stop reading the book after character creation now will just skip to the character creation rules if they are in the back of the book.

The players who read all the rules once will probably skip to character creation rules first, and then go back to the beginning to see how the character is played.

People like me who skip around throughout character creation will continue to skip around throughout character creation.

There will be exceptions, but in general, I don't think re-editing the rules will change the players' approach all that much.

So for the first and third types of players, no change. For the second type though, I'm not sure we can say they would skip to the CC rules first. And if they wouldn't, would that change how effectively they receive that information?

Character creation should be on a small PDF linked from the main book.

For electronic copies sure I could buy that. But it does have to be in the main book somewhere too, especially for the hard copies, and certainly if the smaller PDF would be charged as well (see also the fallout over MgT second edition moving ship building rules to Highguard instead of keeping them in the main book)

The main book should be a large PDF linked - repeatedly - from character creation.

Honestly our electronic copies of TTRPG books have a lot to be desired. Heck not all of them have useable bookmark TOCs, let alone take advantage of the ability for PDFs to have links and other "electronic wizardy" in them.

Most game rule books are aimed at teaching the game, either to utter noobs who've never played an RPG, or to those who do already know RPG's but still need to learn to play THIS one differently than the last one. If you start with character creation first then you can be off and actually playing WHILE you're learning the mechanics, rather than first having to master the mechanics and THEN creating a character to finally begin the game with.

There are certainly advantages to knowing more of the game mechanics before creating a character, especially since many choices about character creation have to be made in the blind before you DO know more about the game mechanics, but the approach of, "mechanics first, then character creation," is generally aimed at already experienced players. For teaching the game, "character creation first, then game mechanics," works better for getting players PLAYING. If you don't care about teaching the game then the order in which you present your content can change... but then it doesn't much matter WHAT order things are presented in - and so you come back around to, "May as well present it in an order easier to learn the game."

And yet as I pointed out in the initial post, one of the gold standards for teaching "utter noobs" a TTRPG is and has been Classic Red Box D&D. Page 2 starts by having you write down your pre-gen character's stats, explaining only the very basics to know what the words represent and then you're dropped on page 3 into a solo adventure. Right away it starts throwing mechanics at you, "attack rolls" "damage" "hp", the concept (but not name) of AC. By page 4 you're being introduced to saving throws. At page 10, in a brief interlude, they start going over the details of the character sheet, and basic equipment and money and XP show up on pages 11 and 12. Page 13 drops you back into the action of an adventure, teaching you now more about dying, mapping, dungeons and more. Class descriptions start on page 24 with class descriptions, and it isn't until page 28 that you actually get (an overview of) instructions for building a character of your own, and that's sandwiched in the middle (as I mentioned earlier) of the class descriptions. The true instructions in the form we've become familiar with don't start until page 48.

There are some additional rules that come after that, but it should be noted that one of the best books for teaching someone a TTRPG doesn't give you steps for building a character until half way through the book, and doesn't give you detailed steps until 2/3 of the way through.

Honestly, any time I introduce a new group to D&D I don't let them make characters. We run a one-shot with premades and then we make characters for a real campaign if they decide to carry on with it.

Character creation is the worst introduction to D&D for new players.

I think it might be one of the worst introductions to any TTRPGs (hence this thread), if only because TTRPGs aren't about creating characters. They're about playing them. Traveller character creation is fun. It's a game in and unto itself. And yet, it's a terrible way to get someone interested in playing an actual Traveller game.

Yeah, pretty much.

RPG rules should really be hard-cover wikis.

That'll make the inevitable errata easier to apply as an added bonus.

I'm not sure I really want to have to buy one hard cover book per chapter to have a TTRPG

[TrinculoLives]

Mouse Guard has character creation at the back of the book.

[Floret]

I think it might be one of the worst introductions to any TTRPGs (hence this thread), if only because TTRPGs aren't about creating characters. They're about playing them. Traveller character creation is fun. It's a game in and unto itself. And yet, it's a terrible way to get someone interested in playing an actual Traveller game.

I'm not so sure about that - yes, RPGs are about playing a character, but quite frequently playing *your* character, "you can be who you want to be" and stuff. There is a reason many people hate pregens, and if I'm being sold on a game with "you come up with a character, btw, you play this one" I'm feeling a bit cheated.

However, many games ofc have terribly complex character creation rules that feel like work at a certain point, which is terrible at introducing the game to newbies, too.

I think a short, concise and interesting character creation system that can be done right at the table might be the way to go - ofc, that would be hard to achieve in most game systems. Maybe some premades with slight customisability?

I found the Playbook style of Apocalypse world to work rather well as a compromise, but adapting that would mean making these "intro characters for customisation" in most systems. Your mileage may vary.

[Florian]

I think one of the best examples that you actually need a lot of knowledge and an extended session zero to play the game is "A Time Of War", the BattleTech RPG.

BattleTech is already a huge affair with one entire hardcover rules book for each "zoom level" that it features, so if you play it in full mode with all bells and whistles, we´re talking about 5 hardcover books and some 3000 pages of rules and we´re not talking about setting, era and vehicles/gear yet.

Character generation is a really deep and powerful system that allows to create nearly any kind of character possible in the setting, from trader or civilian technician, to soldier, MechWarrior or House Lord.

That leads to a flood of problems. First, without knowing which of the "zoom levels" are involved and how they are mechanically connected to skills and traits, a lot of choices don't make sense by themselves or simply don't do anything obvious. Second, without sitting down and making a conscious decision on what kind of campaign to play, you're more likely to get a dysfunctional joke ("A clan elemental, a blakeist infantry grunt and a steiner merchant meet in a bar...") rather than anything playable. This again will be more obvious than in other RPGs when you switch between "character mode", "tactical war-game" and "strategic war-game" with some character being able to participate (MechWarrior can play the tactical game, the house lord can play the strategic game, the technician can play with their thumbs and take a nap while the others are doing their thing).

[Satinavian]

Maybe some premades with slight customisability?

Lately i see many point buy systems provide lots of packages for the same price than the content would cost if bought individually. This allows to build typical, if somewhat bland characters fast and easy while still having all the options foor the unorthodox or non-archetype characters still in the system.

[Max_Killjoy]

Lately i see many point buy systems provide lots of packages for the same price than the content would cost if bought individually. This allows to build typical, if somewhat bland characters fast and easy while still having all the options foor the unorthodox or non-archetype characters still in the system.

That's sorta been the standard for HERO going back to the early 90s in some books -- "if you want to build this sort of character, start with this stuff, which will have this point impact".

[Pleh]

My thoughts: "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

It's hard to get invested in a game that tries to start me out by exhausting me with world details. I can already probably guess half of the details through trope approximations mixed with familiarity with the genre. Any truly interesting, original ideas that make such games unique can usually be described in a single sentence, then extrapolated with a page or two of walkthrough. Example, Tippyverse: post-scarcity society based on exploiting magic power. Then you get a page or two of explaining the concept and giving examples of day to day life in this world and you're done.

Show me the world, don't just tell me about it. Let's hurry up and get me a character so I can start seeing the world for myself. I only need a world premise to work around.

In that spirit, don't make me wade through combat rules to find character options. Once the character is ready, it should need very little or infrequent changing in the future. Combat rules will make themselves apparent over time and I only need to understand the basic mechanic to get started.

That said, don't waste my time with pregen characters. I'm just going to skim past them or maybe reference them as a control group while making my character. Rather, in the first two pages about the world, rattle off a few names of significant NPCs and highlight some of their construction so I have an idea of what maked them work so I can aim to do something similar.

Yes, I want character creation near the front, because I don't care how cool your game is until I know how cool my character can be in it. A cool world premise without a cool character creation system is mostly a narrative vessel and not much of a game.

That said, I've never been a fan of the Fighter's class features scattered through the Feat chapter (and the combat chapter) or the Wizard's class features being scattered through the spell/magic chapter. It's not a bad thing, but it always felt to me like we could do better somehow.

[Rhedyn]

I don't see how intentionally taking subpar abilities and "holding back" are materially different. Both are intentionally underperforming.

And you're still thinking in an inherently competitive framework. That's a big part of the problem right there.

I would say he is thinking tactically and narratively.

Superman does not adventure with Dirty Harry.

[Nifft]

I'm not sure I really want to have to buy one hard cover book per chapter to have a TTRPG

Well, no, what I mean is one hardcover book for the whole RPG, which auto-updates and hyperlinks between sections like a wiki.

Which is to say, the best RPG books would behave in a somewhat un-book-like manner.


I think the most functional media for RPG books is not physical books, but I do like the look & feel of physical books so it's a bit of a dilemma.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would say he is thinking tactically and narratively.

Superman does not adventure with Dirty Harry.

I think what Quertus is saying is that the system should include options that lead to both "Superman" and "Dirty Harry", so that "good" players can self-balance their superior system mastery with other players by taking the the "Dirty Harry" options.

[Celestia]

Well, no, what I mean is one hardcover book for the whole RPG, which auto-updates and hyperlinks between sections like a wiki.

Which is to say, the best RPG books would behave in a somewhat un-book-like manner.


I think the most functional media for RPG books is not physical books, but I do like the look & feel of physical books so it's a bit of a dilemma.

I don't think books can do that, unless we're talking magic books.

[Nifft]

Well, no, what I mean is one hardcover book for the whole RPG, which auto-updates and hyperlinks between sections like a wiki.

Which is to say, the best RPG books would behave in a somewhat un-book-like manner.


I think the most functional media for RPG books is not physical books, but I do like the look & feel of physical books so it's a bit of a dilemma.

I don't think books can do that, unless we're talking magic books.

Indeed, that would be un-book-like behavior.

But it would be pretty great.

[Celestia]

Indeed, that would be un-book-like behavior.

But it would be pretty great.

Probably the closest approximation would be an app that functions like an ebook but with internal links and an internet connection for updates.

[Quertus]

I think what Quertus is saying is that the system should include options that lead to both "Superman" and "Dirty Harry", so that "good" players can self-balance their superior system mastery with other players by taking the the "Dirty Harry" options.

That's close to what I'm saying, at least.

What I'm saying is that groups that get hung up on "game balance" and "balanced characters" are invariably imbalanced IME, because, as the maxim goes, player > character.

A group that actually wants a balanced experience in the real world that produced the "player > character" maxim would evaluate the players, and assign them characters accordingly

Which you can't do if the game produces exclusively balanced playing pieces.

Thus, while I agree that it is best for all the easy to build and commonly desired options to be approximately balanced, it would be nice if there were a more advanced character building mode / more difficult to build characters of similar archetypes that allowed for balancing groups of diverse player skill.

Not entirely unlike spotting pieces in chess.

But wait, you say, chess is inherently competitive, whereas an RPG is cooperative. It's Apple's and oranges.

Well, no. In most RPGs, the characters are still striving against* something - monsters, traps, NPCs, the environment, whatever. IMO, the correct balance point is measured in narrative contribution, in ability to overcome what the party is striving against*.

There are those who will disagree with me. Most notably those with the (alien to me) mindset that those with negative contribution are balanced with those with positive contribution. I'll leave it to them to explain how their sense of game balance works.

Of course, all this is contingent on a desire for balance in the first place. Some groups actually enjoy playing Thor (and the Avengers). Those are the games I find the most realistic, and are often the ones I have the most fun in.

How does that affect book layout? For my proposed balance technique, the optimal layout would have Common, balanced options front and center; advanced balance-fixing options buried in obscure locations.

Which, curiously enough, means "core only, for balance" would still generally be indicative of ignorance.

* Or you can view it as striving for something, and measure ability to move the game towards that something. But it's all the same to me, either way.

EDIT:

Spoiler: That having been said...

Show

So, the conversation went like this:

You don't like metaphor? Fine.

If I play 2e D&D with balanced characters with most anyone I've ever played with, I will either have to hold back (which is but so much fun), or I will dominate the game.

Otoh, if I play in the Warhammer universe, with balanced characters, I will totally under perform. Of course, I'll likely still under perform if you hand me Tzeentch or the god Emperor himself, so it would probably take multiple characters for me to having the same contribution as one inquisitor.

Is that grounded in RPGs enough for y'all?

I don't see how intentionally taking subpar abilities and "holding back" are materially different. Both are intentionally underperforming.

And you're still thinking in an inherently competitive framework. That's a big part of the problem right there.

You don't? Really?

To you, Babe Ruth gently tapping a baseball is an identical experience to you trying to see just how far you can hit a wiffleball? You'd happily live Bob Parr's secret identity, even when you knew that you could do more to help people? Because that would be substantially the same to you as a young teen pouring their heart into a community service clean-up?

No, I'm thinking in terms of spotlight sharing. In terms of everyone getting to contribute, and enjoy the game. I'm thinking in terms of everyone having a role to play.

I would say he is thinking tactically and narratively.

Superman does not adventure with Dirty Harry.

So, to my mind, Superman could adventure with Dirty Harry, if their personalities and stories were compatible, and if either Superman's player was bad enough that his Superman didn't out perform Dirty Harry, or if the party didn't care about balance.

Although, in retrospect, my examples were poor. It probably should have been the same person gently tapping the baseball vs struggling their hardest to get the same distance out of a wiffleball, for example. Ah, well.

[Florian]

That's sorta been the standard for HERO going back to the early 90s in some books -- "if you want to build this sort of character, start with this stuff, which will have this point impact".

Not exactly. What's become a bit common recently is sorta-kinda mix of life path and point buy. You know, pick race, culture, social standing and profession, spend a couple of freebies, done, or replace one of the steps with raw point buy instead.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not exactly. What's become a bit common recently is sorta-kinda mix of life path and point buy. You know, pick race, culture, social standing and profession, spend a couple of freebies, done, or replace one of the steps with raw point buy instead.

Perhaps, but that's not what was being described in the post by Satinavian that I was responding to. What Satinavian described was what some HERO "setting books" did 25+ years ago.

[Cluedrew]

Wow, I thought I knew just about every formatting trick on the forum by now (not that I use most of them), but I flat out have never seen that one before.

What I'm saying is that groups that get hung up on "game balance" and "balanced characters" are invariably imbalanced IME, because, as the maxim goes, player > character.

Actually I was just flipping though the Apocalypse World playbooks... I can't remember why. But I stumbled on at thing that said something like "you may describe your clothing and optionally give it 1-armour or 2-armour". So you can take anything from no armour to the best armour in the game. No difference in cost. To put that in perspective, in another Powered by the Apocalypse system I have sunk a third of my starting resources (not starting gold, starting resources you use to buy up better attributes, materials and skills) into getting 2-armour without a moment's hesitation. So the power swing is huge here. And it is just a rather isolated choice that doesn't effect anything else.

So all of this is to say... I don't think less optimal takes that much work to allow. If you want to give people the option to be less powerful it doesn't really need another section in the book because it shouldn't take that long. Now that is just for adjusting power, I've seen you list off some of Quertus feats and if you want to incorporate that sort of obscure mumbo jumbo that might take up more space, but that is different. And might do with getting pulled out like you said.

[Satinavian]

Not exactly. What's become a bit common recently is sorta-kinda mix of life path and point buy. You know, pick race, culture, social standing and profession, spend a couple of freebies, done, or replace one of the steps with raw point buy instead.

Perhaps, but that's not what was being described in the post by Satinavian that I was responding to. What Satinavian described was what some HERO "setting books" did 25+ years ago.

Actually i meant it general enough to probably cover both. No matter if lifepath-like packages, gear packages, archetype power packages, profession packages ... as long as stuff in the point buy system is grouped together so that you can make reasonable characters in a very short time by just taking a couple of fitting packages and get and end result that costs exactly the same as arriving there via point buy, it fits. And you should also have the option to mix packages and regular point buy.

And yes, while the whole idea is probably not new, 15 years ago many point buy system would have packages that were cheaper than their ingredients to encourage people to play more "typical" or "lore friendly" characters. In practice that only made character creation even more complex as you didn't just buy what you wanted to play but were looking for the cheapest way to get there. That is out of fashion today, modern point buy systems keep it simpler and the cost of stuff is always the same. Instead caps and requirements are used to keep characters from being utterly unreasonable.

[Quertus]

Actually I was just flipping though the Apocalypse World playbooks... I can't remember why. But I stumbled on at thing that said something like "you may describe your clothing and optionally give it 1-armour or 2-armour". So you can take anything from no armour to the best armour in the game. No difference in cost. To put that in perspective, in another Powered by the Apocalypse system I have sunk a third of my starting resources (not starting gold, starting resources you use to buy up better attributes, materials and skills) into getting 2-armour without a moment's hesitation. So the power swing is huge here. And it is just a rather isolated choice that doesn't effect anything else.

So all of this is to say... I don't think less optimal takes that much work to allow. If you want to give people the option to be less powerful it doesn't really need another section in the book because it shouldn't take that long. Now that is just for adjusting power, I've seen you list off some of Quertus feats and if you want to incorporate that sort of obscure mumbo jumbo that might take up more space, but that is different. And might do with getting pulled out like you said.

I've slept on it, and I still don't have a response to this. I apparently have hidden assumptions that I'm unaware of. I'm going to go home, and rethink my life stance.

[Knaight]

Perhaps, but that's not what was being described in the post by Satinavian that I was responding to. What Satinavian described was what some HERO "setting books" did 25+ years ago.

GURPS has been doing this for a fair while as well, Fudge had it from its first printing (which was only 23 years ago), and I know I've seen it elsewhere in fairly old games, particularly when including something akin to the pregens but with almost every point spent, as an archetype you can start with instead of a blank slate, while being able to fully modify them to anything you could get by starting blank.

[Max_Killjoy]

GURPS has been doing this for a fair while as well, Fudge had it from its first printing (which was only 23 years ago), and I know I've seen it elsewhere in fairly old games, particularly when including something akin to the pregens but with almost every point spent, as an archetype you can start with instead of a blank slate, while being able to fully modify them to anything you could get by starting blank.

Cool. Knew about GURPS, didn't realize Fudge had the same "tradition".

It's certainly nothing new, regardless.

Sometimes it seems like the dominance of D&D-likes/d20 in the market for so long means that the same concepts and ideas that break from how that family of systems does things appear "new" or "fresh" or revolutionary" over and over again as people discover them in other systems, even if other other systems did those "un-D&D" things decades ago.

Just last year, I had to tell someone who was excited about additive die pools instead of a flat d20 as "refreshing" and "different" that he should go do some research on WEG d6 Star Wars....

[Cluedrew]

I've slept on it, and I still don't have a response to this. I apparently have hidden assumptions that I'm unaware of. I'm going to go home, and rethink my life stance.

I mean I only disagree with... one foot? of that stance. The general solution (basic/advanced character creation sections) is fine I just don't think the problem really requires it.

So if there is a hidden assumption I think it would be that there must be some option there instead of just put nothing. It reminds me when I got into table top war games, or a new one. Anyways there was the one guy who had already been playing the game for a while. The simplest solution to rebalance that would be to play with fewer points. Instead he played this complex faction that if you got all the combos off they would approach most of the other factions in power. As I recall he still went undefeated in the first year.

So besides a small trip down memory lane for me, even the advanced options can still overpower the simple ones. They usually have a much lower floor, but the ceiling can easily end up below, equal or above the simple options. So using the complexity of the option as some sort of balancing tool is doable, but it would probably take a lot more work that just adding some power dials to your character.

It's certainly nothing new, regardless.

"Someone has probably already made a documentary that says how to save the world." Which is to say people have already figured out a lot of stuff, looking around will dig up a lot of good ideas. Of course in pop culture and even the less focused gamer culture just sees D&D. So a lot of it gets missed.

[Quertus]

I mean I only disagree with... one foot? of that stance. The general solution (basic/advanced character creation sections) is fine I just don't think the problem really requires it.

So if there is a hidden assumption I think it would be that there must be some option there instead of just put nothing. It reminds me when I got into table top war games, or a new one. Anyways there was the one guy who had already been playing the game for a while. The simplest solution to rebalance that would be to play with fewer points. Instead he played this complex faction that if you got all the combos off they would approach most of the other factions in power. As I recall he still went undefeated in the first year.

So besides a small trip down memory lane for me, even the advanced options can still overpower the simple ones. They usually have a much lower floor, but the ceiling can easily end up below, equal or above the simple options. So using the complexity of the option as some sort of balancing tool is doable, but it would probably take a lot more work that just adding some power dials to your character.

Got it. I found my missing piece.

So, the reason I'm hung up on obscurity is simple: it isn't just about fixing overpowered players. It's about those with System Mastery being able to both nerf the strong (themselves), and empower the weak. Oh, the party scout is consistently under-performing? Well, there's this obscure option they can take that would improve their performance.

If, like in your armor example, everyone could easily take it, then System Mastery no longer has value for Empowering the Weak, and can only be used to Nerf the Strong.

That's the hidden assumption I was subconsciously working under. But, sometimes, you have to tear your beliefs apart, and rebuild them from the ground up to truly understand where you are coming from.

Thank you for helping me find such a spot.

[ijon]

So, the reason I'm hung up on obscurity is simple: it isn't just about fixing overpowered players. It's about those with System Mastery being able to both nerf the strong (themselves), and empower the weak. Oh, the party scout is consistently under-performing? Well, there's this obscure option they can take that would improve their performance.

If, like in your armor example, everyone could easily take it, then System Mastery no longer has value for Empowering the Weak, and can only be used to Nerf the Strong.

why's it gotta be obscure though? just having an easy (GM-approved) way to adjust your power level up or down would do the same thing and be clearer about the intention behind it, and the only real difference I see is having the scout player go "oh I never knew that, sweet" vs going "shut up I'm doing fine I don't need a buff" out of pride or something. but if they don't want a buff, y'know, that's their choice.

and if you're the DM, you don't even need anything like that. after all, no one complains about a pile of treasure/vault/weapon stash/whatever with a cool gizmo that benefits them greatly, even if it's suspiciously targeted towards them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

why's it gotta be obscure though? just having an easy (GM-approved) way to adjust your power level up or down would do the same thing and be clearer about the intention behind it, and the only real difference I see is having the scout player go "oh I never knew that, sweet" vs going "shut up I'm doing fine I don't need a buff" out of pride or something. but if they don't want a buff, y'know, that's their choice.

and if you're the DM, you don't even need anything like that. after all, no one complains about a pile of treasure/vault/weapon stash/whatever with a cool gizmo that benefits them greatly, even if it's suspiciously targeted towards them.

And if you build in intentional imbalance points you run the risk of players that think they have system mastery using them, mistakenly thinking they've found an exploit. And getting frustrated.

I'm most against accidental imbalance--where things that should be good (based on name and idea) just plain aren't (usually due to interactions with other issues).

[ijon]

And if you build in intentional imbalance points you run the risk of players that think they have system mastery using them, mistakenly thinking they've found an exploit. And getting frustrated.

that, and the idea of the rulebook obfuscating stuff like that just doesn't sit right with me. I want my rulebook to lead me to what I need to know, and what I need to know is how to play the system well. intentionally doing "trap options" or "hidden gems" or what-have-you is going directly against that, and doesn't speak well for the rest of the system.

[Quertus]

why's it gotta be obscure though?

Because if it's obvious, at character creation, take 0-2 armor, which is best, those who need the help will already be "optimal", the same as those who don't (but aren't yet at the level of "balance to the group").

You lose the "those who care enough about the game to get a PHD in it (which is a similar set to those who care enough about the game to want it to run well, and know enough about the game to make that happen) can help you" effect.

And if you build in intentional imbalance points you run the risk of players that think they have system mastery using them, mistakenly thinking they've found an exploit. And getting frustrated.

I'm most against accidental imbalance--where things that should be good (based on name and idea) just plain aren't (usually due to interactions with other issues).

Let's pretend that, in MtG, Red is the color of direct damage. Let's also pretend that, if played that way, it's balanced with the other colors played in their primary fashion. These aren't exactly true, but pretend.

Now, for this discussion, we'd need each of the colors to telegraph their intended primary play style, and for it to be easy for players to build solid, balanced decks if they focus on these particular themes of each color.

If someone in that scenario wants to take obscure Red cards, and build a deck based on obscure interactions of hand cycling and deck shuffling mechanics, and makes something terrible, is that really the fault of MtG?

This also ties in a bit into conversations about linear vs sandbox, actually. If a card is useful in at most one situation in one deck, and the rest of the time, no-one would ever play with it, that's different from a generally useful card that happens not to do what this particular deck needs. Just like one can create elements in an RPG that are intended to be played with exactly one way, vs more generally useful toys.

that, and the idea of the rulebook obfuscating stuff like that just doesn't sit right with me. I want my rulebook to lead me to what I need to know, and what I need to know is how to play the system well. intentionally doing "trap options" or "hidden gems" or what-have-you is going directly against that, and doesn't speak well for the rest of the system.

Perhaps obfuscation is a misnomer. I want the 101 core rules book to contain what you need for simple, balanced characters that meet the primary archetypes of the game.

Then I want advanced splats to give you the 200-level courses through PhD material, that you can use to fill in niche cases, balance the party, etc.

[Cluedrew]

I can see it now: RPG 714 Supporting With Non-Support Creating characters that support or highlight other characters in the party. Draws on theory of interdependence. Focus given to character archetypes not traditionally associated with the supporting role. Narrative and mechanical tools will be examined, as well as simple table side strategies.

On the other hand, why does this metaphor start with entry level post secondary education? In hindsight that seems a little bit high for playing a game. Welcome to Giant in the Playground.

[Max_Killjoy]

The idea that one should have or need a "PhD in gaming" is ludicrous to begin with.